User talk:89.242.104.142

April 2011
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Bilderberg Group, you may be blocked from editing. Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Bilderberg Group. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Reliable sources
You need to have a reliable source for information like that, and the source you're putting in the talk page absolutely does not meet that requirement. See WP:RS for information. Ravensfire ( talk ) 21:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Talk:Bilderberg Group. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Favonian (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not therapy. If you are suffering from a mental illness that makes it difficult for you to tell the difference between real and non-real things, I have a great deal of compassion for you, but that is not a problem that Wikipedia can help you with. You are right to reach out for help, but rather than reaching to Wikipedia, please call a mental health professional. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but I happen to be a security consultant to governments (i.e. National Security). My specialist areas are cyber-warfare, espionage and counter-terrorism with particular focus on technological solutions (e.g. TEMPEST, etc). Whilst it can be difficult for the lay person to understand the technology described, I can assure you that I have no such difficulties. Please do not attempt to pass off your own technological ignorance as a position of knowledge and authority. You are by no means a specialist in either mental health or bio-espionage...and yes, it is real. I have personally spent years directly working with the Artificial Intelligence of the program.89.242.104.142 (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I know someone with a job not unlike the one you claim to have. But I don't know precisely what he does, because people with that job take 'classified' information very seriously- he would never, ever tell me, or even give me a hint.  And he definitely wouldn't edit-war to put it on the internet.  I'm pretty sure that your actions would result in your not only being fired but charged with a fairly serious crime, so it's good that we have prevented you from compromising yourself further.  Remember that you have a legal responsibility to report this conversation, and your earlier edits. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have already made such a report. I'm a consultant, not an employee and I have a certain level of exemption.  Any activity labeled as classified must be lawful and human experimentation is certainly not lawful.  I can assure you, if I was in breach of any law, I would not be in a position to reply to your responses.  Thank you for your concern, it is genuinely appreciated.  If I may make a suggestion, it is in everyone's interest not to gloss over criticism in relation to such groups or questionable activity.  You just never know when it may be true and such warnings may be the only heads-up everyone receives.  Remember "domestic and foreign"...and all that jazz.  I feel we can leave this entire issue for the time being, feel free to decline the request.89.242.104.142 (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It is also a WP:BLP violation to say someone has violated a law without reliable sources meeting our criteria at WP:RS, and in this case - claims that attending Bilderberg meetings are illegal - you will not find them and any such edits will be reverted. Dougweller (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)